摘要目的:比较红光和日光光动力治疗面部寻常痤疮的疗效和安全性。方法:2019年3—11月，重庆市中医院皮肤科接受5-氨基酮戊酸光动力疗法治疗的面部寻常痤疮患者52例，男34例、女18例，年龄18～35岁，平均23.2岁。将5%浓度5-氨基酮戊酸涂于全面部，患者右侧面部红光照射20 min，左侧面部日光照射2 h。每周照射1次，治疗4次后比较两侧面部痤疮缓解情况、不良反应、患者满意度。结果:与治疗前相比，入选患者两侧面部的炎性和非炎性病变的数量均减少，两侧皮损清除率差异无统计学意义[53.7%(28/52)比59.1%(31/52)，χ 2＝0.89， P>0.05]。红光侧总有效率88.5%(46/52)，日光侧82.7%(43/52)，二者比较差异无统计学意义(χ 2＝0.38， P>0.05)。从不良反应来看，轻度红斑是常见的不良反应，且日光侧少于红光侧[34.6%(18/52)比19.2%(10/52)，χ 2＝5.98， P<0.05]。两组治疗期间疼痛评分，与红光侧相比，日光侧治疗期间疼痛较轻[(7.6±2.3)比(4.1±1.3)分， t＝13.10， P<0.001]。患者对日光侧的总体满意49例，占94.2%，红光侧满意37例，占71.2%，日光侧高于红光侧，差异有统计学意义(χ 2＝9.60， P<0.05)。 结论:日光光动力治疗寻常痤疮与红光光动力疗效相当，但是日光光动力产生不良反应较少，患者满意度更高。

abstractsObjective:To compare the efficacy and safety of red light and daylight photodynamic therapy in the treatment of facial common acne.Methods:From March 2019 to November 2019, 52 patients with facial common acne who received 5-aminolevulinic acid photodynamic therapy in the Department of Dermatology, Chongqing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were enrolled, including 34 males and 18 females, aged 18-35 years, with an average age of 23.2 years. A 5% concentration of 5-aminolevulinic acid was applied to the entire face, with the right side of the face being exposed to red light for 20 minutes and the left side to daylight for 2 hours. The treatment was administered once a week for a total of 4 sessions. After the treatment, the acne remission, adverse reactions, and patient satisfaction on both sides of the face were compared.Results:Compared with before treatment, the number of inflammatory and non-inflammatory lesions on both sides of the face in the enrolled patients decreased, and there was no significant difference in the clearance rate of skin lesions between the two sides [53.7% (28/52) vs 59.1% (31/52), χ 2=0.89, P>0.05]. The overall effective rate on the red light side was 88.5% (46/52), and 82.7% (43/52) on the daylight side, with no significant difference between the two (χ 2=0.38, P>0.05). In terms of adverse reactions, mild erythema was common, and it was less on the daylight side than on the red light side [34.6% (18/52) vs 19.2% (10/52), χ 2=5.98, P<0.05]. During the treatment period, the pain score on the daylight side decreased compared to the red light side [(7.6±2.3) vs (4.1±1.3), t=13.10, P<0.001]. Overall satisfaction with the daylight side was reported in 49 cases (94.2%), and with the red light side in 37 cases (71.2%), with the daylight side being higher than the red light side, and the difference was statistically significant (χ 2=9.60, P<0.05). Conclusion:Daylight photodynamic therapy is as effective as red light photodynamic therapy for common acne, but it produces fewer adverse reactions and higher patient satisfaction.